linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] usb: typec: intel_pmc_mux: Add new ACPI ID for Meteor Lake IOM device

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YuOOvqoF4jJ3Tpmw@kroah.com>
Date:   Fri, 29 Jul 2022 09:39:42 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Utkarsh Patel <utkarsh.h.patel@...el.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
        heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com, rajmohan.mani@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: typec: intel_pmc_mux: Add new ACPI ID for Meteor
 Lake IOM device

On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 05:30:33PM -0700, Utkarsh Patel wrote:
> Intel Meteor Lake IOM uses 64bit IOM BASE address than previous Intel
> Generations which use 32bit.

I can not parse this sentence, sorry.

> Added code to support 64bit IOM BASE address change with necessary ACPI
> resource extraction support.

Again, I do not understand :(

> 
> Signed-off-by: Utkarsh Patel <utkarsh.h.patel@...el.com>
> Reviewed-by: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>

No need to backport this to stable kernels?

> ---
>  drivers/usb/typec/mux/intel_pmc_mux.c | 9 +++++++--
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/usb/typec/mux/intel_pmc_mux.c b/drivers/usb/typec/mux/intel_pmc_mux.c
> index 47b733f78fb0..a8e273fe204a 100644
> --- a/drivers/usb/typec/mux/intel_pmc_mux.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/typec/mux/intel_pmc_mux.c
> @@ -571,9 +571,11 @@ static int pmc_usb_register_port(struct pmc_usb *pmc, int index,
>  
>  static int is_memory(struct acpi_resource *res, void *data)
>  {
> -	struct resource r;
> +	struct resource_win win = {};
> +	struct resource *r = &win.res;
>  
> -	return !acpi_dev_resource_memory(res, &r);
> +	return !(acpi_dev_resource_memory(res, r) ||
> +		 acpi_dev_resource_address_space(res, &win));

I don't understand, what is the extra check here doing?  Why is that
needed and why aren't you triggering off of a platform type?

thanks,

greg k-h